The findings were part of a grand jury investigation conducted at the request of Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, with authorization from the state's supreme court. The jury was instructed to find out whether pharmaceutical firms and medical organizations were involved in any “criminal activity or wrongdoing” in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
Although their investigation has not been completed, they have already issued a slew of damning findings that show how wrong so many COVID-era government policies were. Specifically, they determined in their interim report that masks are not effective and that lockdowns cause more harm than good. In addition, they've determined that COVID hospitalization numbers were most likely inflated, and that the virus was “statistically almost harmless" to children as well as many adults.
Masks are not effective
The grand jury reported that there has never been any “sound evidence” that masks are truly effective against the transmission of COVID-19 and that policymakers relied on flawed lab studies in establishing mask mandates.
They noted that both cloth and surgical masks offer limited effectiveness when it comes to protecting against the aerosol particles that contain the virus and that an N95 mask only protects the person wearing it and not those around them. Moreover, they must fit perfectly and remain dry in order to be effective. However, given that people take off their masks regularly, such as while eating or making a speech, there were still plenty of opportunities for exposure.
Hospitalization numbers are likely overstated
The grand jury also found it was “highly likely” that hospitals inflated the number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations they reported, largely because they failed to make a distinction between people who were admitted because of infection with the virus itself and those who were admitted for other reasons but happened to test positive for the virus upon intake.
Moreover, because the CARES Act established financial subsidies for Medicaid and Medicare patients who had the virus and were admitted to hospitals, there were “incentives to report more than just hospitalizations for COVID-19 disease.”
Lockdowns hurt more than they helped
One of the most controversial COVID-19 measures, particularly in the early days of the pandemic, were lockdowns. Many people consider this a major infringement on their freedom, and there is no question that they caused untold damage to the economy.
However, the grand jury found that in those areas where extended lockdowns were enacted, higher excess mortality was recorded due to lockdown-related consequences such as mental health declines, spikes in drug abuse deaths, economic depression and missed routine medical checkups.
They also found that lockdowns were not very effective at stopping people from getting infected with the virus because people still left home to obtain essential goods and so-called essential workers had to leave their homes in order to supply them. In addition, the report cited comments made by the World Health Organization in 2006 that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.”
Children and most adults were not really at risk
The grand jury used an analysis of Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) to find that “COVID-19 is statistically almost harmless to children and most adults.” For those aged 25, the IFR was just 0.029 percent, and that figure rose to 0.28 percent for those aged 45. However, 85-year-olds had a 12.9 percent IFR.
The grand jury maintains that these flawed policies were the result of poor judgment rather than flawed information because plenty of research was already available during the pandemic that showed the inefficacy of measures like masks and lockdowns.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
